I try to keep my contracts short and free of legalese. Real world contracts are really long because many people are greedy and sue-happy and willing to sell out their own mother for a nickel. I prefer to do business on a handshake and a smile.

What's it going to take to add a few lines to all of my contracts?

"In the event of exceptional circumstances not precisely covered in this contract, latitude and authority rests with the asset issuer to freely determine and decide the procedure to mitigate the situation at hand. Anything not explicitly covered in this contract remains in the domain and control of the asset issuer alone."

The approval of your asset holders through a vote to make such a change would be required.

Although I can't see why they would approve that as it essentially gives all power to the issuer and removes any protections or recourse they may have.

This is essentially a "do what I like and get away with it" clause and would mean that any asset with it is worthless.

You clearly identifed that the shares were to be sold "at 1 BTC each". Not exchanged for other shares worth way less than that.

That's the easiest breach to demonstrate.

Aside from specifics of contract breaching you also, as any director of a company does, have an obligation to act in the interest of your share-holders. Spunking away 95% of nav without any proper accounting for it is clearly not fulfilling your resposibilities to those who entrusted you with their funds.

The text you quoted is NOT in the contract. I have not violated the contract as stated on GLBSE.

I do have a responsibility to my shareholders to act in their interest: investing in assets that I believe will massively appreciate in value over the coming months is acting in their interest. Just because asicminer and abmo are both worth around 0.10 BTC now doesn't that their combined value and dividends paid cannot be ten times that or more over the next year.

This is how investing works: you buy at the bottom, you sell at the top.

The approval of your asset holders through a vote to make such a change would be required.

Although I can't see why they would approve that as it essentially gives all power to the issuer and removes any protections or recourse they may have.

This is essentially a "do what I like and get away with it" clause and would mean that any asset with it is worthless.

Only as worthless as the ethical standing of the person issuing the asset I would say. I will initiate motions on OBSI.ABMO & FUTUREFUND for this, as the other assets are bonds and it doesn't really apply.

Pretty pointless to add it anyway - if the point is to prevent nefario locking your account if he suspects fraud. As you've explicitly given him permission to do that already when you agreed to GLBSE's TOS. You've also agreed to provide information identifying yourself and that he can change the TOS at any time he wants.

"I can do whatever I want" contracts are essentially not legally enforcable anyway. If your argument is that there's no "law authority" able to enforce the basic rights of your shareholders (against you) then it logically follows that there's also no such authority able to enforce YOUR rights (whatever they may be) against GLBSE.

You clearly identifed that the shares were to be sold "at 1 BTC each". Not exchanged for other shares worth way less than that.

That's the easiest breach to demonstrate.

Aside from specifics of contract breaching you also, as any director of a company does, have an obligation to act in the interest of your share-holders. Spunking away 95% of nav without any proper accounting for it is clearly not fulfilling your resposibilities to those who entrusted you with their funds.

The text you quoted is NOT in the contract. I have not violated the contract as stated on GLBSE.

Well if it's your contention that nothing in the OP here applies - only what's in the GLBSE contract then you've broken your contract every single time you bought shares rather than mining hardware. As at no point did you submit a motion to change to an investment rather than a mining company.

"A share in the best mining company ever"

You aren't running it as a mining company - but as an investment company.

"2) 50% will be used to invest in additional hardware"

Where's this additional hardware? And where's the original hardware to which it IS additional?

etc.

No use saying you agreed it with investors - as, you now seem to be claiming, what you've written in the OP (and discussed elsewhere in the thread) counts for nothing as it isn't in the GLBSE contract (or added to it via a motion). You can't have it both ways.

This is essentially "I can do whatever I want" for Nefario. Now I understand it's his site, and he is free to run it as he sees fit, but I don't want to end up not having a provision in the contract for some random occurrence, thus some shareholder can now try and seize control. Politics and drama abound in this arena, and people will do their best to try to play you. This is like being in a Dune RPG.

I do my best to act in the best interests of my shareholders, but I have a very negative reaction to anyone trying restrict rights because I didn't explicitly request them. This is my "allow all" policy amendment, and now shareholders can request motions to restrict that policy in future contract changes.

I'd be happy to hear the loophole, as I'm no lawyer and I don't even play one on TV.

A few fundamental issues:

You appear happy for YOU to have an "I can do whatever I want" clause - but aren't interested in extending the same to nefario. Why are you more trustworthy than him?

His "I can do whatever I want" clause trumps yours - as it was agreed first.

The DMC situation is NOT "some random occurence" - the only randomness seems to be in Diablo's mental process.

No terms in your contract can (or could in the "real world") sign away your fundamental obligations to your share-holders: to act in good faith in their interest. If someone did what Diablo did in a "real" business then he'd certainly be under criminal investigation by now: handing out bundles of unissued shares to others at a tiny fraction of their value is essentially defrauding share-holders.

Who do YOU believe has the responsibility of enforcing/ruling upon your contract with your shareholders? Whoever it is has to decide not only what teh contract says, but whether it's reasonable and whether the involved parties are acting in good faith. That's why vague "anything I haven't thought of" clauses end up rarely being enforced - as the responsibility is on YOU to ensure that whatever that clause covers is something your shareholders would reasonably have known it to cover when they agreed to it.

As for the loophole - you can figure that out yourself but you may find it highly amusing when you do (depending which one you find).

Note also that your terms (if interpreted as you'd like them to be) would be extremely unfair to yoru investors in some circumstances. e.g. If you die then noone could distribute assets to the shareholders - as it's not explicitly covered in your contract so only you can do it (which could be tricky for you).

To be clear I'm not calling Nefario's competency into question. These securities were launched with a contract between myself and my shareholders, I don't think anyone should be able to insert themselves into the gaps, no matter their intentions.

You're missing the fundamental point.

WHO interprets and enforces the contract between yourself and your shareholders? Whoever does that has to:

1) Decide what the contract means,2) Determine which parts of it are actually valid/enforcable,3) Decide whether the parties to the contract are acting in good faith and which (if any) of them have broken the contract or their other responsibilities to one another,4) Enforce it.

Without someone in that role the contract is meaningless - not worth the virtual ink on which it's written.

Given that someone has to have that role you can't then have a contract which explicitly attempts to deny that role - as the whole contract becomes unenforcable sue to noone being entitled to enforce it (you'd in effect be saying that X arbitrates disputes over the contract - but only so long as they rule in your favour).

Your shareholders have to trust that you'll deal with them fairly and with some degree of competence: otherwise they shouldn't have invested with you.

But similarly, when using GLBSE, you have to trust that nefario will deal with YOU fairly and with some degree of competence when it comes to disgareements over the contract between you/your shareholders or other aspects of your dealings via his exchange: otherwise you shouldn't be using it.

You appear to have some view that everyone should trust you, but you should trust noone else - and that in any dispiute between you and your shareholders YOU should be judge, jury and executioner. Frankly, as a potential investor, that scares me. A lot.

Obsi do you understand that Diablo a) broke his contract b) lost 1000s of bitcoins of investor capital, c) is witholding assets from DMC shareholders and to top it all off is d) accusing his largest shareholder of conspiring with nefario to steal 100% of DMC's assets? Do you realize he actually said that?

a) Nope.b) Lost? Not quite. Get screwed on fixed mhash bonds? Yes, I will admit that was not one of my finer moments.c) Withholding? No. Withholding the good news until the ink is dry? Yes. Plus, it has no monetary value until we have customers.d) Largest? Nope. Second largest? Possibly. What you and nefario both have said do not make your case look good, he has clearly said he will look for a new CEO, and you "warned" me that if I didn't do what you said something would happen in the near future. Is it just a coincidence such a thing happened?

*lol* Obsi is the one person, besides diablo, that doesnt like the ongoing course. Which is not a random happening but instead an action against fraud (or at least economic incompetence that hurts the shareholder). I already decided not to invest in any of your projects because you run a hyip at glbse. Making your other projects shine in a gray light too. So it sounds somewhat natural that the ongoing development isnt in your interest.

You appear happy for YOU to have an "I can do whatever I want" clause - but aren't interested in extending the same to nefario. Why are you more trustworthy than him?

His "I can do whatever I want" clause trumps yours - as it was agreed first.

The DMC situation is NOT "some random occurence" - the only randomness seems to be in Diablo's mental process.

No terms in your contract can (or could in the "real world") sign away your fundamental obligations to your share-holders: to act in good faith in their interest. If someone did what Diablo did in a "real" business then he'd certainly be under criminal investigation by now: handing out bundles of unissued shares to others at a tiny fraction of their value is essentially defrauding share-holders.

Who do YOU believe has the responsibility of enforcing/ruling upon your contract with your shareholders? Whoever it is has to decide not only what teh contract says, but whether it's reasonable and whether the involved parties are acting in good faith. That's why vague "anything I haven't thought of" clauses end up rarely being enforced - as the responsibility is on YOU to ensure that whatever that clause covers is something your shareholders would reasonably have known it to cover when they agreed to it.

As for the loophole - you can figure that out yourself but you may find it highly amusing when you do (depending which one you find).

Note also that your terms (if interpreted as you'd like them to be) would be extremely unfair to yoru investors in some circumstances. e.g. If you die then noone could distribute assets to the shareholders - as it's not explicitly covered in your contract so only you can do it (which could be tricky for you).

By default I trust myself more than anyone else.

I am not claiming that Diablo-D3's situation is random.

With Nefario's stated stance on the issue, anything not covered in the contract is now up for debate and his decision at his discretion. I drafted my contracts with nearly completely opposite expectations... anything not explicitly stated is my domain. The statement I wish to add merely brings them back to my initial incorrectly assumed position.

In the event of my death, instructions have been left to allow an orderly shutdown & transfer of my securities. I freely decided and determined that mitigation procedure ahead of time. Without such a clause as I wish to add, Nefario could basically do whatever he wants at any time because anything.

To be clear I'm not calling Nefario's competency into question. These securities were launched with a contract between myself and my shareholders, I don't think anyone should be able to insert themselves into the gaps, no matter their intentions.

The problem is we have ourselves a conundrum.

Your gentlemens agreement is all well and fine as long as there are no problems or no disagreements. Considering that sometimes my wife and I (married 10 years) sometimes cannot agree on something and argue, what do you think the chance is of you having a disagreement with your shareholders on how you run the business? A lot higher I think.

Now with your clause, you essentially say that you settle all disagreements in your favor, and the shareholder has to just suck it up. This is grossly unfair, and means that your gentlemans agreement isn't so gentle, it amounts to you not willing to put contractual power behind your word, making it worthless, and would not be in anyones interest to take you on it.

I have family, who I very much care for and trust, but some of them I would only lend money to or trust with money on the personal knowledge that I probably wont get it back. Which is fine for me I don't mind giving money to help out family, blood is blood but that even being the case that they are my own family, for anything large I'd get them to sign a contract( actually before I wouldn't have done this, but after running GLBSE for all this time it's certainly changed my mind).

Now if this is the situation for family imagine it for near faceless business partners over the internet and the problem is compounded.

The other problem is judicial, when a problem comes up and the two parties involved disagree who is to be the decider? In your clause you say it's always going to be you. Without such a clause, and in the event that there is nothing on the contract on who is the decider then by default that job falls to the person with most power and least stake. Which in our case happens to be me, simply because I am in the position of power as the admin of GLBSE.

I think a way around this (me becoming the default decider) is to have in your contract a person nominated to make decisive decisions in the event of disagreement. But failing this being in the contract there is really no one else but for me to do it.

Regarding the fullness of contracts and the assumption of a domain by the issuer unless strictly stated, we can't have a middle ground. Either we must accept that a lack of provisions in a contract means that either nothing can be done or that the decider has the power to do something. These choices are mutually exclusive. Either the decider has domain or the issuer has domain it cannot be both.

As you have stated you assumed (as I think most issuers have) that you had domain. I've never stated until my previous post whether this was or wasn't the case, as to be honest it hadn't really come up.

I think it is quite clear that having the default position of domain being with the issuer in the event of a dispute between issuers and asset holders is, of the choices available the worst one.

It requires all investors to become lawyers, and provides no recourse when they invest on incomplete, inaccurate or in some cases false information (fraud). Your provision would make it impossible for investors to take action in the event of fraud.

Also your statement on letting the market sort it out is wrong, markets can only act on the information available to them. When there is fraud, this information is lies, and the market has been deceived. Once the issuer has gotten a hold of the markets capital he has it and all the market can do is write it off if he turns out to be a thief. This is not an issue that the market can solve as it's the victim.

So then the question comes to, if I'm the decider, on what rules do I make decisions?

And then we have another problem, because I'm now in the position of being a judge without significant legal experience or training (I have my little area of legality that I'm quite familiar with, but it's very specific). I'm left as the judge without a set of rules or laws to make my decision by.

In this case we're lucky, an audit and a shareholder vote is obviously the solution to our problem. But in the future when it's more complicated, who knows. And this is why we have laws, lawyers, judges and courts.

You asked in whose interest am I doing this, obviously in GLBSE's interest, a healthy, growing, successful market is entirely in our interest as we gain from it.

So when a dispute arises I will try to get both parties to come to an agreement, failing this I must take up the position of the decider, and because the capital that is invested belongs to investors, it places an obligation on me, GLBSE, and the issuer, and directly as a result means (after careful consideration) that domain over the asset should not be with the asset issuer.

What is to stop GLBSE from deciding to ... keep said assets for itself in a dispute (as you say us being the decider means we can do anything)? Because GLBSE has an obligation to ensure all capital is returned to asset holders, since it was their capital in the first place, and we have no right to it (and in the case of fraud or miss management / incompetence the issuer has no right to that capital either). It's the same situation with deposits, we have an obligation to our users that have deposits with us to return those deposits on demand.

I have stated from the beginning that I will do things my way to the best of my ability. I don't think anyone should be the judge, jury & executioner, but if someone must be named in those roles, it should be handled by someone with an interest in the security. I am a majority shareholder in my share-based offerings and I think any disputes should be handled amongst ourselves.

A smile & a handshake is enough for me. If it's not for you, don't invest.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree here. When 2 parties to an agreement have a dispute there's absolutely no way one of those parties can also be the judge.

It's fine talk about things being "handled amongst ourselves" - but when that fails someone else HAS to make the final decison.

Nefario's post above this makes exactly the same point (amongst others). I'm not going to waste my time and clutter this thread any more by repeatedly saying the same thing which you either ignore, don't understand or just firmly disagree with.

Diablo, as a shareholder I implore you to cooperate by allowing Nefario to release the CSV. While this is a complete mess, and there have been mistakes made on both yours and Nefario's parts, this will just get messier if you end up getting taken out of DMC. I have confidence that if you can make it through this, DMC can be successful.

DMC is a fantastic idea, combining renting out shelf space and selling cloud services with Bitcoin mining. If you keep being hostile towards Nefario and Usagi, you're not going to win, no matter who's in the right. You're not showing your shareholders why they need to vote to keep you on-board right now.

I voted against the motion. This is under the assumption that you can get your shit together. You've obviously made mistakes, but you need to acknowledge them, and grow from them.

In other words, please don't fuck this up.

Time is more valuable than money. You can get more money, but you cannot get more time.GPG | OTC

This point seems to be overlooked by some and needs to be stressed. The assets, like the company, belong to the sharesholders and no one else. Its not your company Diablo, you sold it and then you (mis)managed it.

This point seems to be overlooked by some and needs to be stressed. The assets, like the company, belong to the sharesholders and no one else. Its not your company Diablo, you sold it and then you (mis)managed it.

Except I never mismanaged it. I may have not always been able to turn a profit, but I haven't mismanaged it.

Diablo, as a shareholder I implore you to cooperate by allowing Nefario to release the CSV. While this is a complete mess, and there have been mistakes made on both yours and Nefario's parts, this will just get messier if you end up getting taken out of DMC. I have confidence that if you can make it through this, DMC can be successful.

DMC is a fantastic idea, combining renting out shelf space and selling cloud services with Bitcoin mining. If you keep being hostile towards Nefario and Usagi, you're not going to win, no matter who's in the right. You're not showing your shareholders why they need to vote to keep you on-board right now.

I voted against the motion. This is under the assumption that you can get your shit together. You've obviously made mistakes, but you need to acknowledge them, and grow from them.

In other words, please don't fuck this up.

I'm hostile towards anyone who is trying to harm shareholders. If nefario wins, then not only does DMC lose, but so does every single asset on GLBSE. DMC can be successful no matter what nefario does, but even if DMC is successful this doesn't mean shareholders are unharmed.

As I said before, if nefario succeeds, then shareholders cannot be paid dividends because I will not send one more BTC to GLBSE and nefario will refuse to release a list of shareholders and their number of shares.

You think I'm not showing my shareholders what they need? They need a leader who will protect their interest in the company, they need a leader who will follow the plan and not destroy the wealth of assets that has been built to make this plan happen.

Why do you think I've been in talks with building business relationships not only with other major Bitcoin companies, but also with companies in the ISP industry? Because I believe in the plan. It is financially sound, and it can be the thing Bitcoin needs to show the world we're serious about what we're doing. We can do this.

As I said before, if nefario succeeds, then shareholders cannot be paid dividends because I will not send one more BTC to GLBSE and nefario will refuse to release a list of shareholders and their number of shares.

Nefario, could a motion be raised to release a list of shareholders to Diablo? Looking back at TYGRR.BOND.P you didn't seem to want to budge on that issue, but if the shareholders vote in favor of it, I can think of no reason why you wouldn't be able to do it.

Time is more valuable than money. You can get more money, but you cannot get more time.GPG | OTC

As I said before, if nefario succeeds, then shareholders cannot be paid dividends because I will not send one more BTC to GLBSE and nefario will refuse to release a list of shareholders and their number of shares.

Nefario, could a motion be raised to release a list of shareholders to Diablo? Looking back at TYGRR.BOND.P you didn't seem to want to budge on that issue, but if the shareholders vote in favor of it, I can think of no reason why you wouldn't be able to do it.

Let's say you are the type of person who values privacy. You do not want anyone to know anything about you. Now let's say you are a shareholder of DMC/TYGRR.BOND.P.Should 51% of the shareholders of DMC/TYGRR.BOND.P be able to vote to violate your privacy by having your name and holdings placed on a shareholders list?

Good point. Perhaps make it opt-in, by having each shareholder message Nefario through GLBSE that they would like to be included on the list? Seems cumbersome, but I'm not sure that there's a better way that respects the privacy of each user.

Time is more valuable than money. You can get more money, but you cannot get more time.GPG | OTC

As I said before, if nefario succeeds, then shareholders cannot be paid dividends because I will not send one more BTC to GLBSE and nefario will refuse to release a list of shareholders and their number of shares.

Nefario, could a motion be raised to release a list of shareholders to Diablo? Looking back at TYGRR.BOND.P you didn't seem to want to budge on that issue, but if the shareholders vote in favor of it, I can think of no reason why you wouldn't be able to do it.

Let the motion be later. It all depends on nefario here.

If the current motion passes no, then I remain as CEO, and the plan continues.If the current motion pass yes, the assets will have to be written off and replaced, then that sets the plan back about a year, and we need to make other arrangements to pay shareholders.

As I said before, if nefario succeeds, then shareholders cannot be paid dividends because I will not send one more BTC to GLBSE and nefario will refuse to release a list of shareholders and their number of shares.

Nefario, could a motion be raised to release a list of shareholders to Diablo? Looking back at TYGRR.BOND.P you didn't seem to want to budge on that issue, but if the shareholders vote in favor of it, I can think of no reason why you wouldn't be able to do it.

Let's say you are the type of person who values privacy. You do not want anyone to know anything about you. Now let's say you are a shareholder of DMC/TYGRR.BOND.P.Should 51% of the shareholders of DMC/TYGRR.BOND.P be able to vote to violate your privacy by having your name and holdings placed on a shareholders list?

I brought this up earlier, but no one cared. A lot of people traded assets with DMC, a lot of people probably do not want their names released.

Even if you blank all their names out, it gives an improper view of what really happened.